Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Lazarusliamfinnegan Date: Mar 12, 2007 5:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

I guess no one wants to touch this again, eh?

Well all my legal research should not go wasted- click on my liamfinnegan name and go back to November and December of 2005. The NY times article is impotent on the issue- and the first qoute:

“Just because you own the tapes doesn’t mean you have the copyright to the music on them,” said Ms. Beringer, who argues that Mr. Graham never had a copyright to this music in the first place. “The copyright act says that the performers are the presumed owners of the copyright.”

The Copyright act says no such thing about live musical performances- if it did, there would be no dispute. It would be simple. In fact, the copyright act is silent on the matter entirely. The us signed a treaty about ten years ago which in part tried to "settle" the matter, but no court of law has yet to uphold the conventions statutes.

There is also a very important distinction in law of authorized and unauthorized taping of live performances. At this point in time- and I beg anyone to ask a copyright lawyer what the law is and not what their opinion is, and that lawyer would have to tell you that live performances currently fall under the color of state laws.

No wonder prosecutions are not widespread- who could afford to bring actions in 35 or 40 states simultaneously? State laws only speak to unauthorized recordings- what do we do with authorized recordings?

Many times the law is contrary to what some might think is common sense or morally correct- it is just that way. What I am going to research is if the "band" is a party to this action or if it is individual members of the band.

All of you who have tickets to the current Ratdog tour may want to think what portion of their ticket is paying Bob's share of this law suit- what portion of their beer and t shirts- best of wishes to you- I will NEVER go to see that band

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skuzzlebutt Date: Mar 12, 2007 6:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

I'm not going to revisit the whole soundboard/dowload issue again. However, I will repeat something I've said all along: Bob Weir has given me a hell of a lot more over the years than I've ever given him. I wish him nothing but the best.

My 2 cents.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HiRoller Date: Mar 12, 2007 6:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

"All of you who have tickets to the current Ratdog tour may want to think what portion of their ticket is paying Bob's share of this law suit- what portion of their beer and t shirts- best of wishes to you- I will NEVER go to see that band"

I don't agree with Bob's decision to take down the soundboards, but I really doubt that he's one of the ones who would press charges. They still allow downloading of soundboards from other sites, and I bet Bob knows about them. So you can disagree with Bob's decision to remove the soundboards, but to say that he's taking part in this law suit is incorrect.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Mar 12, 2007 7:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

Not only is Weir in the suit as a member of the Grateful Dead, but is also counter-charged with defamation due to his rather outspoken opinion of the Wolfgang site. He's fairly clear about the issue, and in this case, I believe on the wrong side.

The beef here isn't even about selling the recordings or downloads, but using them to attract visitors to the site, wher they can purchase the memorabilia collected by Graham over the years. The site even claims trhat they pay broadcast royalties to the bands for the streaming content.

Weir's claim seems to be that the Wolfgang site is profitting from the sale of Grateful Dead objects such as posters that have their corporate logos affixed...or band photographs with their likeness. Even saying that these articles are essentially "stolen." (Bob should look up the definition of memorabilia to aid in his getting a clue.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Mar 12, 2007 6:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

Liam (Lazarus?) ... i've always said it, a bunch of vultures who have more than enough to live comfortable ten times over, scrambling over the proverbial bag of silver

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tigerbolt Date: Mar 12, 2007 6:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Who owns live music recordings? NYTimes article

liam to bad your not going to catch any ratdog shows,great music and vibes.as far as the wolfgang saga goes how is this all on bob.nobody ever mentions santana,pink floyd,zep,the doors etc..what about phil,mick and billy why do they get a free pass.by the way folks the pulling of the sounboards started with the beating of the drummers as stated by john barlow in meeting about it.in fact barlow and hunter are the only two from that meeting that was against it.bob said some stupid things,we all have in are time just ask my ex-girlfriends :)as far as the wolfgang music all those shows circulate in sbd quality at torrent sites and snail mail.just got to do some searching. my 10 cents (inflation)

This post was modified by tigerbolt on 2007-03-13 01:55:59